Stellar, with all due respect, if you'd care to further enlighten me as to why I should "just move on", I'd love to hear it.

Because you seemed hell bent on doing so?

For while it is true that I am not very familiar with Mr. Estulin's record, I see no way in which that changes my arguments. I was simply
stating that one should always question an anonymous source, especially when their claims are extraordinary.

When i notice you regularly questioning sources when it comes to more critical issues i will come back and apologise for presuming that you are biased
towards disregarding these types of theories and threats.

I did not dismiss the claim in question entirely on that basis, nor did I accuse Mr. Estulin of being untruthful. In my opinion, even the
best of reporters get fed a load of b.s. every now and then. Thus the source of the claim is very important.

Sure the source is important and that's why it should be protected while we check the reporters record for credibility on prior predictions.

I also fail to see the point you were trying to make in comparing the emergence of ideas from Ron Paul's campaign, to the situation in Haiti.
Are you referring to the American Invasion of 1915, to the 1994 invasion to depose the military dictator, Raoul Cedras,

The US government first picked Aristide but when they realised that he was going to actually do some good for Haitians they promptly had him replaced
by Credras only to have their machinations exposed and the public rising up to demand that Aristide be reinstated. The US national security people had
to back off for a while but that wont bring back all the deaths their actions led to.

and re-install democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide, or to the history of Haiti as a whole, and how do any of these incidents have
anything in common with the ideas espoused by Ron Paul and his supporters?

Ron Paul has already forced his competitors in the televised debates to talk about issues they would never would have and it's these types of
discussions that are going to get many Americans thinking. The truth is after all a very infectious thing and if it's not constantly suppressed it
has a nasty way of getting out and spreading fast.

As for the rest of your arguments, no personal offense intended, but I think they are weak at best.

I would have to respect and value your contributions to take personal offense when you disagree so there is no danger of that just yet.

You admit in your response that you believe that the elite are powerful enough to control the elections, but claim that Ron Paul's message
is so strong that they may kill him simply for speaking those ideas.

But to control the elections takes effort and these efforts have been exposed for all the world to see when Jeb stole the election for Dubya. While
they are clearly able to get their way there is a very real cost as more and more Americans come to understand that they are not living in a
functioning democracy and start organizing to once again make it so. The more effort they have to spend to rig elections the more Americans they are
going to 'lose' in the process and since that can't go on for very long without having to resort to violent suppression you eventually have to act
against the organizers and whoever has standing enough to expose your actions. Their record in the third world speaks volumes as to just how
effectively you can control nations when you have bought and co opted the rich and are willing to assassinate those would be leaders of the
disenfranchised.

Again I'm sorry, but I have seen no evidence that his message is that strong.

And does that say something about what you can and can't see or his message?

Now, please don't get me wrong, I am not denigrating Ron Paul or his supporters, in fact as a long time republican, I am encouraged by the
activism that the Ron Paul campaign has engendered amongst a historically lackluster republican base,

Lackluster republican base? Ron Paul is appealing to people who no longer thought they could vote republican and to people who either did not care to
or who can't stomach the 'democratic' candidates. I do not believe he is all that appealing to the fundamentalist republican base as frankly their
may simply be far too well indoctrinated to understand what he is offering them.

but when you are talking about the American voter base as a whole, Ron Paul supporters are still a small minority.

And why would they be anything but that given a controlled media and the corporate interest that is in my opinion unlikely to support him?

Further, even if one assumes that Ron Paul's message is as strong as you believe, the evidence you cite that the elite kill those who
threaten their supposed power is suspect.
You cite the killings of JFK and RFK to support your theory, but in my opinion both of those killings are highly debatable as conspiracy theories and
as such offer no real proof for a threat against those who speak out on Constitution rights.

So the assassination of a president and a 'sure thing' democratic nominee for president is just run of the mill stuff for you? Who do you think
killed them and why do you think it's a only a 'conspiracy theory' instead of the very real conspiracy that so many commissions have found it to
be? Do you think the House Select Committee on Assassinations senate would have mentioned the word 'conspiracy' without good reason?

As for your comment that "the republican party would... love to see him dead for perpetually voting against almost anything that is obviously
bad for Americans"; this is plainly ignorant and partisan. I don't feel the need to point out specifically why this is so, as it should be obvious,
but I did want to address it.

It is in my opinion a fact but since you do not seem to even understand how he has voted over the years you might very well be unaware that he has
been a torn in his parties side for a very long time.

And finally:
And I can't imagine them (if they truly exist in the form that has been proposed here) doing anything to stop Ron Paul. I foresee Ron Paul doing
relatively poorly in the individual primaries, with the possible exception of a state or two and the quietly fading back into obscurity.

I don't think Ron Paul will 'fade' away without state assistance but i suppose we are close enough to the election to wait and see just how wrong
or right you are.

It's my belief that the possibility of Ron Paul winning the republican nomination is slim, and the chances of him winning the Presidency in a
third party run are even smaller.

And that we can certainly agree on....

I also believe the chances of Ron Paul being assassinated by any NWO, elitist conspiracy are infinitesimally small and am willing to stake
some of my money on it. God forbid it should happen, but if it does, simply offer me convincing proof, or even a reasonable, sound argument to the
possibility that it was a conspiracy and I'll gladly pay you 500 American dollars to fund your "revolution".

Best regards,

I would glady take your money but since you have admitted that you still think Kennedy and Robert were assasinated as they claim they were i have NO
reason to believe that you could ever admit the type of organized foul play that would put a end to Ron Paul's voice. What's with the talk of
revolution when i am not even American?

If the Republicans are so intent on killing anyone that doesn't vote the way that they like, why are you not seeing Democrats being killed off in
droves? It's utter BS to think that anyone is calling for Ron Paul's demise.
He doesn't(and never had) have a chance in hell of winning the nomination or general election. He's nothing more than an isolationist, with
libertarian views, which is certainly nothing revolutionary or ground breaking.

I'm not convinced of any of this ya'll. I understand the RP supporters would be rightly pissed of and try and do something. However I am afraid a
majority of the population does not even know who RP is, and they wouldn't give 2 poops if he was killed. Right now they don't know/care about his
campaign, I don't think his death would change much for them.

So until Ron Paul, there'd been no libertarian isolationists? I'm sure the GOP is terrified that somebody might hold that view. Why wouldn't the
GOP be terrified of a Democratic candidate, that doesn't share their views, and want them killed too? I'm sorry but while there are those with whom
I disagree with in government, I don't for one minute believe they are all plotting against one another's lives. That's asinine. You're
projecting your hatred of what certain politicians stand for, and then convincing yourself that they're capable of any manner of evil. They are all
Americans, who had regular lives before getting into office. Some are more ethical than others, but there's no magical transformation once someone
gets into politics that turns them into cold blooded killers.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Some are more ethical than others, but there's no magical transformation once someone gets into politics that turns them into cold blooded killers.

The "magical" transformation takes place when allegiance is sworn to the NWO. No cold blooded killers? Why don't you tell that to the 1 million
dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while you're at it, explain that to the families of nearly 4,000 American troops, too.

The desire to take him out specifically, is predisposed. He is one that can't be bought, and the ground swell of support has been fast and furious.
We don't need no suppositions or reports. It is automatic in this particular case. But ok, whatever, I'm outta here.

So every politician has sworn allegiance to the NWO? If not, how can we tell? Is it just the politicians you disagree with, that have gone to the
dark side? I'd love to see some evidence for this transformation to cold blooded killers. What about when they get out of politics and go back to
their regular lives. Do they continue to kill off those with whom they have disagreements with?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
So every politician has sworn allegiance to the NWO?

Now where did I say that? Of course not. But at this point it is clear that many have.

If not, how can we tell?

That would be an excellent question for Alex Jones. But the big problem is that many politicians may not even know what they've gotten themselves
into. While some might be tempted here or there on a local bribe or two, I believe many, if they knew, and had the global perspective of what the NWO
is trying to do, would NEVER get involved, or would do something to try and stop it. There are many still salvageable, is my point, and we cannot
overlook them.

Is it just the politicians you disagree with, that have gone to the dark side? I'd love to see some evidence for this transformation to cold
blooded killers. What about when they get out of politics and go back to their regular lives. Do they continue to kill off those with whom they have
disagreements with?

What I am trying to get you to see is that it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they want him six feet under. Because of what he represents.
Hell, you think they wouldn't, when they have clearly demonstrated their absolute inhumanity killing over 1 million? They're going to have a lot
tougher time killing Paul's ideas. And while it's true that his ideals have been expressed before in Independent parties, I don't think any one man
has quite been in the position he is politically, and grass roots wise. He is uniting a lot of support that has been previously fractured.

Because he is outside of, and opposed to the NWO network, he presents a special problem to the NWO. They are happy as long as one of their entangled
candidates makes it to front stage. If Paul starts winning whole states, yes, his life will be in serious danger. Right now, he's probably just a
secondary objective.

Do you think any politician will ever come right out and say "We need to fight the NWO?" That would be some good press right there!

What is stopping Dr. Paul do you think? Obviously he must know about it right? Why not make it a point of his campaign? I honestly don't think it
would hurt him any. Most people don't know who he is anyway, and a majority of the "normal folk" who do know who he is think he is a kook anyway. I
am voting for him regardless, but I would love to see this on the next news cast.

Blueraja your not suppose to make sense man. I used to try and do that too but I realized that when you speak rationally, people flat out ignore your
posts. You need to be more sensational if you want some points here.

Where is the evidence that anyone wants Ron Paul dead. I disagree with him, along with many others, but hey- they're free to have whatever views
they want. I don't want them dead just because I'm strongly opposed to their agendas. The US has not killed 1 million Iraqis, so stop with that
nonsense. Whatever the true number of Iraqi casualties there are, and we're strictly talking about non-combatant casualties, over 90% are as a
result of insurgent violence(and I'm guessing well over 90% to be more accurate).
How many Germans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese, etc.. did we kill in previous wars? Did this cause those politicians to be willing to kill
fellow Americans with whom they disagreed? As a soldier, I can distinguish between an enemy combatant being killed, an innocent bystander, or a
fellow American, and can easily make a moral distinction between justifiable homicide and murder. I give the leaders of the country that same benefit
of the doubt(even those I disagree with).

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.